It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dear "agnostics": You're atheists, get over it.

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


...look, I'm going to say this again.

Agnostic.
I do not know.

Atheist.
I do not believe.

Agnostic Atheist.
I neither know nor believe.

The two aren't mutually exclusive terms. 'Agnostic' used on its own is an incomplete statement. You cannot be a simple agnostic as there is a position of either belief or not in a deity no matter what.

I'm not religiously defending this, and your attempt to poison the well is noted. I'm waiting for there to be an actual logical counterpoint.




posted on May, 3 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Thanks for the response. I apologize for making assumptions about you. Your responses sometimes come across as arrogant, but tone is hard to detect on the internet so again I sincerely apologize.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Let's try to make this clearer...with a story:

 



Freddy is a boy who was taken from his family as part of an experiment. He was taught about the universe, taught about some history, taught about art and many other things. However, he was never taught of any concept of any deity. Nobody explained it to him and he was isolated from any outside influence that might introduce it. He did receive love, kindness, and all the other things a child needs to flourish.


Does Freddy believe in a deity?
No.
Does this make Freddy an atheist?
Yes!
He is an Implicit Agnostic Atheist. He doesn't know about the concept of any deity, thus he cannot believe in any deity. Thus newborn babies are also atheists, they're also a-cowists as they are unaware of what a cow is and thus cannot believe in cows.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by Buddha1098
 


i understand that... I've had experiences myself, but i wouldn't place them in the delusional catagory. If you know the truth of existance why dilute it by presenting the possibility of insanity.

Perhaps its fear of being wrong?


Fear of being wrong? No. I'll quote the Matrix trilogy to try and explain.

Locke- "Goddamnit Morpheus! Not everyone believes what you believe!"

Morpheus- "My beliefs do not require them to."

I believe with 100% certainty that what I have experienced is true. I cannot prove it empirically, nor can I exclude the possibility that I could be mistaken. If you ask me my opinion then of course I'll offer it, but if you want to have a logical debate on the existence of the spiritual then I have to admit that I don't know. Anyone who is truly honest with themselves would have to admit the same thing.

Like Socrates I know that I know nothing.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Buddha1098
 


right on man..




posted on May, 3 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Buddha1098
 


Nice quote from the Matrix but an incomparable connotation of faith.

You're forgetting that Morpheus's beliefs are in regards to a person.

"I have faith tiger woods can win the open"

"I have faith that my mother will turn up at a given time"

"I have faith that Neo can defeat the machines"

This type of faith is backed by confidence. Not blind speculation.

POINT TO ADD:

Within the context of the Matrix, a person born into the Matrix via the machines may believe in God, because they "feels" it even though they are under a misapprehension. I think it's wise to remain agnostic, and not believe because of a want, but because of a reason.

Anyway that film certainly taught me to be vigilant of my own beliefs and.....killer robots.
edit on 3/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


My faith is based on my experience not blind speculation.

It doesn't matter to me whether anyone else believes what I do, nor does it shake my faith in any way. You live your truth and I'll live mine.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Buddha1098
 


Cool, i'll stick with the open-minded approach. I'm not trying to change your beliefs - Only respond to your arguments or points of contention.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


I have already stated I'm agnostic on numerous occasions in this post. I'm open-minded about every possibility although I think some are more likely than others.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Buddha1098
 


You must know the possibilities in order to have faith that 1 possibility is the most likely.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


My experiences have lead me to make conclusions based on available evidence. I am willing to admit that I know nothing. I cannot prove that You exist and neither can you, so how can I admit to knowing anything about god? I don't know all the possibilities and should my experience change in the future my beliefs will as well.

I'm having a really hard time understanding how you don't get this? I'm saying I'm agnostic and you're saying I should be open-minded? Am I missing something? Is my comprehension off or...? Help me to understand what it is that I've said that you have a contention with because I'm having a hard time seeing it.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Buddha1098
 



I cannot prove that You exist and neither can you


Face-

palm.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shamatt

Originally posted by NadaCambia

Originally posted by Shamatt

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Shamatt
 


Agnostic Atheist
Gnostic Atheist

I thought that one was already sorted out. Agnostic is a position on whether or not the question is absolutely knowable, not whether or not you believe. Both people described are atheists as they both lack a belief in any deity.


Fair enough. Millions of us will continue to use the words incorrectly.

You, in your wosdom and brilliance can start being the onlu person in the world to use the words the way you are proposing. Have fun.

Jeeez, how can someone be so thick sculled and arrogent? Must be a teeneager


In the UK what he's saying is both the accepted definition and understanding of Atheism and Agnosticism. He's hardly unique in his views. In fact most theologians and noted Atheists agree too.


I spent most of my life in the UK I was born there. What he is saying is a crock. He keeps saying "How often do I have to explain this" - Well, Untill he gets it right he will have a lot of explaining to do matey!

So many intelligent people have tried to put him rught here, but he stil sticks with his stupid duality.

All Oranges are fruit, therfore all fruit is oranges.
Athiests don't beleive in a god so if you don't beleive in a god your are an athiest.

This is flawed logic as it assumes that those who have not yet made up their minds must, by definition not yet beleive in god and therfore they must be by definition an Athiest. Doh!

And if you start getting to the nitty gritty, Athiests beleive there is no god, agnostics can't decide, just don;t know..... then all sorts of non logical mumbo jumbo gets thrown about which really makes little sence at all.

This guy is a brilliant arguer, if only he could get his poor little head arround some basic English words. Perhaps purchase a dictionary, or check out some online recourses wchich would help him look up the meaning or words.



There's nothing fallacious about it though. He's not engaging in fallacy. If you don't believe in God you're an Atheist, by definition. If you haven't made up your mind then you don't believe, ergo you're an Atheist.

Unless you're pigeon holing Atheism as being only the rejection of God, and a belief in itself - I can't see how you'd come to view his statements as fallacious.

If you don't believe in God you are an Atheist. By the very definition of Atheism.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Okay avoid the question if you like.

Prove to me that you exist. Prove to me that this is not a dream or a simulation. Prove to me that everything on earth is not here for me.

You can't. Solipsism is the only certainty. Now I don't believe that you don't exist, but if you forced me to choose I'd have to admit that I don't KNOW that you exist. I'd have to admit that I'm agnostic about it.

Do you actually have something to say? Or do you just like seeing yourself post?
edit on 3-5-2011 by Buddha1098 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Buddha1098
 


Yes, but this doesn't address whether or not you currently believe in any deity. I'm open minded to all sorts of possibilities too...but that doesn't mean I believe them.

Oh, and experience is a horrible thing to base claims related to the nature of reality on....



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Buddha1098
 


I don't like seing myself post, but i do like seing ignorance put right, even my own.

And of course i exist. Agnostic to my existence? i should think words being typed into a forum, with a user name, suggests some kind of sentient existence....

I'm an existentialist. Like i said, you've admitted your own agnosticism regarding the causality of existence, or whether causation is even a nessasary assumption.

Your argument rests on your experience, which you are yet to detail, and quick to defend.



edit on 3/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Buddha1098
 


I don't like seing myself post, but i do like seing ignorance put right, even my own.

And of course i exist. Agnostic to my existence? i should think words being typed into a forum, with a user name, suggests some kind of sentient existence....

I'm an existentialist. Like i said, you've admitted your own agnosticism regarding the causality of existence, or whether causation is even a nessasary assumption.

Your argument rests on your experience, which you are yet to detail, and quick to defend.



edit on 3/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)


You have failed to prove you exist to me my friend. Your words suggest that you exist they prove nothing.

My experience isn't going to convince you of anything so why would I share it? Unless you are just curious in which case I can send you a PM

I'll ask you again in what way am I ignorant. Please use elementary and clear language so it is easy for me to understand.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I'm agnostic so my answer would be: "Maybe."

In my opinion experience is the only thing to base reality on.
edit on 3-5-2011 by Buddha1098 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Buddha1098
 



Originally posted by Buddha1098
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I'm agnostic so my answer would be: "Maybe."


...so you're unsure as to your own position on something? You have a position whether you acknowledge it or not. To say that your answer to "Do you believe in any deity?" is "Maybe" is to dodge a question that you actually have an answer to.



In my opinion experience is the only thing to base reality on.


Thankfully, personal opinions (mine included) don't really count for much unless they have something to back them up.

In my reasoned out and backed opinion, rational inquiry coupled with the scientific method is the only thing to base reality on. How do I think this is a good idea? You're using a computer, aren't you?



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
The two aren't mutually exclusive terms. 'Agnostic' used on its own is an incomplete statement. You cannot be a simple agnostic as there is a position of either belief or not in a deity no matter what.

The two are not mutually exclusive, perhaps this is true, but to claim that "agnostic" on it's own is incomplete is not really true.

Nada cambia claimed my analogy was not correct, but didn't seem to explain why. Here is another analogy for him. Consider the idea of Schrodinger's cat. If we were asked "Do you believe the cat is dead?", some might say "Yes", some might say "No" and some might say "It may be. It is impossible to tell". This third option, once again, is not a subset of "No".
Or perhaps to bring it closer to the the subject at hand, and leave behind Schrodinger, if I showed you a closed box and said "Do you believe this box has a (for the purposes of being humane
) toy kitty in it?", you might answer "Yes", you might answer "No", and you might answer "It may have. It is impossible to tell". This third option is not a subset of "No".

While you (madness) may scoff at common usage, this "uncommon" usage you are trying to foist on everybody is a relatively new invention.

As a generally unbiased standard for common usage, let me present to you the wikipedia article on Agnosticism:


Types of Agnosticism
Agnostic atheism
Agnostic theism
Apathetic or Pragmatic agnosticism
Ignosticism
Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "permanent agnosticism"
Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")


Specifically the "Strong agnosticism" there.

If a person you met said he neither subscribed to the belief that there are any gods, nor to the belief that there is no god, because the existence of such deities is inherently unknowable, what would you call this person? To call them an "atheist" would be very inaccurate.
There is a fairly large list of people, some of who you can access to read about through the wikipedia link I provided, and some of who are in this very thread, who call themselves agnostics, but not atheists. And this is a completely valid position- who are you (or who is anybody else) to say different?

The wikipedia link to the article on Agnosticism also has a very interesting section under "Criticism->Atheist" where Dawkins whines about this very point- it seems he also wants these agnostics to join his ranks, or else he'll accuse them of "intellectually cowardice"
.
edit on 3-5-2011 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join